Nah, he just spoke "stupidly".

What I meant was that it is easier to see what a governor stands for as opposed to a legislator. There is so much spin applied to legislators voting records when they run for office. For example someone may vote against a version of a bill because of one specific piece of it and then others will use that to spin it to mean something else or that the person stands for something other than what he or she truly stands for.

It is definitely a problem. But that $4 trillion did not just disappear into thin air. Would the economy be worse if we didn't take on that debt? Will the economy be better or worse in the long term because of that debt? I like you on my initial question in my prior post patiently wait until i can answer these questions. 

Not really. Take the TEA Party out of the equation. If they hadn't come to exist what do you think the magnitude of the swing would have been? I would guess fewer libertarians would have gotten elected but i don't know whether all of those seats would have ultimately gone to republicans since a lot of the fervor was to get rid of incumbents.

I think you're quite right on this.  A Governor's executive actions are much less subject to obfuscation and you have a much more concrete basis for judging how they'd conduct themselves as President.

Ah, Agreed.

it almost did.  Government can waste money that disappears, and given this money did no good, where is it?  You can find a few billion here and there perhaps, but I defy anyone to account for it all.  They cannot.  They might as well have burned the money.  Same effect.

And - more importantly - how they lead.  Congress has no leaders - just a bunch of committee men (and women).

Then again, Carter was a governor.

 l'exception qui confirme la règle